Looking for honest opinions (really)

I am a 48 year old female in average shape. I started running in 2006 and did a bunch of 1/2 marathons before finally attempting my first full in 2011. It was a flat course with 2500 runners and I achieved what I set out to do - have fun and finish in under 5 hours. Then I got ambitious - I signed up for the RW MCM Challenge in 2012 and set out to break 4:30. I followed the training plan to the letter, nailed all my pace times, and never had any serious injury. On race day I had the crappiest run of my life - felt miserable and ended up with a 5:07. Swore I would never do another full, and basically didn't run on a regular basis from November until this past week. But now I'm itching to give it "just one more try", see if I can redeem myself and recapture the fun and exhilaration I felt at my first full. BUT, I'm scared to try it again and end up falling on my face (again) - any thoughts?

I personally HATE race day...I know, sound horrible from a runner, but I'm being honest. I love the training and excitement leading up to the race, and I love those precious moments surrounding crossing the finish line, but every race I've done I always ask myself "Why am I doing this? What the hell was I thinking when I took this up?" I do it because I love the journey, and I love seeing what my body can do. I set ambitious goals (sometimes too ambitious). When I fail, I lick my wounds, take a break, and try again.

It sounds like you're ready to get up and try gain. If you've taken so much time off of running, why not start slow? Get back into the half marathon game, put your energy into setting a new PR there, and once your confidence is restored go for the full 26.2 again.

I know SOOOOO many people who attempt their first marathon too fast, or get back into it after a break too fast and end up being miserable and swearing they'll never do it again. Remember, running should NOT be just a hobby, or a checkmark on your bucket list. It's a lifestyle. If you miss the lifestyle, go for it.

What was your half marathon time, and your weekly mileage, before your 2012 full? If you chose your goal time based on wishful thinking rather than on your actual ability as indicated by those metrics, that could be why you fell on your face in your second marathon. (I distrust training "for" a time; hitting paces is not particularly relevant for an endurance event such as the marathon.)

If you run a solid mileage base before your race, and you choose your goal time wisely, and you pace sensibly during the race, you will have a better chance at succeeding in your marathon. If you want to try it, choose a race far enough in the future that you have time to build up your mileage and run a few more 10Ks or halfs to judge your progress. Good luck!

My opinion is that choosing to train "to" a particular time for a particular race is unwise.

You cannot dictate how fast your body will respond to training, so how can you know what time you will run before you begin the training. The best approach is to figure out your current fitness and train to improve it as much as possible in the time you have before your goal race. As the race date approaches, check your fitness and THEN choose a goal pace.

There are a few reasons why this is the way to go. 1) it is the most effective way to train 2) it is the only way you can achieve your best potential result (not aiming too high or low) 3) you don't set unrealistic goals and end up disappointed.

If you set a goal to train smart and race smart then your fate is in your own control: if conditions are bad you can still have a successful race. Picking an arbitrary time as your measure of success set you up for failure.

I took me three tries to make my goal time of sub 4:00. And when I looked back on my training, I honestly did not train very hard the first two times. Not sure what the RW plan entails. I used Pfitzinger 18/55 for my 3rd marathon and ran a 3:43. Maybe you should train hard for a half, and then using a pace calculator and using your HM time, see if 4:30 is reasonably attainable.

BTW my second marathon was slower than my first & completely miserable too and I really beat myself up about it, which looking back was a waste of energy. I learned a lot from the crappy second marathon and I bet you did too!

MichaelMc said it well. Also hitting all your paces in training isn't necessarily a good thing if those paces were set too fast. It's quite possible you were training too hard and went into the race tired rather than fresh. Couple that with a possibly overly ambitious goal and the result is a disaster.

can't say I agree with michael on this. personally, i need a goal time so i can plan out how hard i am going to push it in training. i can't go in to training using my current level of fitness and then say i'm going to run just a bit harder than the shape i am in now then try to improve it. without a firm goal and a solid plan, it'll be like throwing darts.

hanson, pftizinger et al all base their training on goal time to plan out the proper paces one needs to hit during training. it's one of the reasons why these plans are so effective.

unless the OPs goal is completely unrealistic (like if she said she want's to run a sub 3 a year after running a sub 5), I think setting a realistic goal, which she did in considering 4:30 then sticking to a plan that can get her there is probably more effective than training without a goal.

now, if after going through training and determining that her body did or did not adapt well to it, that would be the time to adjust it higher or lower.

the more relevant questions to ask would be what happened on race day? Did you go out too fast? Was it nerves? too much pressure to hit your goal? how was your nutrition and hydration?

then I would ask what happened in training? maybe the plan picked wasn't a good match? did she have enough recovery days? or maybe too many recovery days? maybe it was too aggressive (as wcrunner pointed out). how about your taper?

either way, those are some things that you'll need to figure out for your next race.

having said all that, congrats on getting the "itch" and best of luck on your next race. I am happy to hear that you've decided to keep on running.

Wow - I'm overwhelmed (but not surprised); you guys are awesome, and this is the feedback I'm looking for. NiaLee - thank you especially for your honesty. I feel exactly the same on race day, and its nice knowing I'm not alone!

i am the type of person who needs a "goal" to stay focused. I also love the training process - I love recording my runs and following plans that include variety and challenges like hill work and tempo runs. Otherwise I just tend to plod along. My 1/2 marathon a few weeks before the MCM was 2:09 so I felt good about my time goal. But, the half course was mostly flat and the weather that day was perfect. MCM had a long slow ascent between mile 2 and 3 (that felt like it went on forever) and that was hard on me, since hills are my biggest weakness. Also race day was the day that Supestorm Sandy was moving in. We didn't get rained on, but the wind was constant, the sky was overcast and the pressure system made my head throb. None of these are excuses of course, because I had friends who did this race and set PRs. Still for me it was a source of frustration.

Wow - I'm overwhelmed (but not surprised); you guys are awesome, and this is the feedback I'm looking for. NiaLee - thank you especially for your honesty. I feel exactly the same on race day, and its nice knowing I'm not alone!

i am the type of person who needs a "goal" to stay focused. I also love the training process - I love recording my runs and following plans that include variety and challenges like hill work and tempo runs. Otherwise I just tend to plod along. My 1/2 marathon a few weeks before the MCM was 2:09 so I felt good about my time goal. But, the half course was mostly flat and the weather that day was perfect. MCM had a long slow ascent between mile 2 and 3 (that felt like it went on forever) and that was hard on me, since hills are my biggest weakness. Also race day was the day that Supestorm Sandy was moving in. We didn't get rained on, but the wind was constant, the sky was overcast and the pressure system made my head throb. None of these are excuses of course, because I had friends who did this race and set PRs. Still for me it was a source of frustration.

Thank you all for the feedback - I love and NEED hearing all this!

The bolded part is what Ilana refers to above. With a 2:09 half, unless you were running 50+ miles per week in training before MCM, the 4:30 goal was probably out of range for you then. Add the wind and weather, almost certainly. I'd also guess the effort going uphill early and trying to hold a too-fast pace overcooked you early in the race.With solid training, emphasizing endurance and not too fast, you'll be ready for the next marathon. Nothing wrong with having a goal in mind. As Michael said, however, train based on your present shorter distance fitness and build up the endurance, then set a goal race pace. If you're just starting up again now, I suggest you run a 10k or similar race when you've been at it for a few weeks to determine what training paces could be. As you get fitter, your paces will get faster, you can adjust your training paces to a faster level, and your endurance will improve to support a marathon race pace.

I agree with longboat and others who suggest that your goal of 4:30 was probably unrealistic off a 2:09 half. You may have just plugged the 2:09 half into a calculatory like McMillan and had it spit out a projected marathon time around 4:30. But that result is assuming training of 50+ mpw (or maybe more, in case of McMillan).

There are projected time calculators where you can adjust the aggressiveness to account for differing levels of training. E.g., the Maclin spreadsheet you can download here: https://www.box.com/shared/qr1u960kfg

Off a 2:09 half that Maclin spreadsheet estimator projects around 4:30 only at the aggressive settings, which it says shouldn't be used unless you're training at 65+ mpw. On the more conservative settings it projects marathon time of 4:42 to 4:52. Don't know what your mile splits looked like in your race, but I suspect if you'd been conservative and shot for a 4:50 you might well have gotten it.

In any case, you need to be aware that projection calculators like McMillan are not a "one-size-fits-all". At the very least you should use something like Maclin calculator to get an idea of range of projected out comes and set a time goal based on your level of training.

With the wind, hills, and headache, it's no wonder the race was difficult for you.

in terms of the 2:09, I just don't see the 4:30 out of range with that time...aggressive? maybe. Out of reach...no. all i can base this on is from personal experience and if i had listened to all the people who told me that i would never meet my previous two time goals based on HM times and weekly mileage then I probably would have failed.

Needless to say, all this is important and will play a factor but don't let it stop you. I can't argue against longboat's, ilana's ,and michael's logic as it has obviously worked well for them. for me though, training at paces designed to get me to my goal is has served me very well. chalk the last one up to a bad race...

Don't be scared to give it one more try! You will have learned so much from your first experience that will be beneficial for the second attempt, and a lot of that knowledge is invaluable. It sounds like your initial marathon doesn't feel like the experience you wanted it to be, so try again. You will get six more months of physical and mental fitness at the least, and at the most you'll get a chance to vindicate yourself in the marathon!

With the wind, hills, and headache, it's no wonder the race was difficult for you.

in terms of the 2:09, I just don't see the 4:30 out of range with that time...aggressive? maybe. Out of reach...no. all i can base this on is from personal experience and if i had listened to all the people who told me that i would never meet my previous two time goals based on HM times and weekly mileage then I probably would have failed.

Needless to say, all this is important and will play a factor but don't let it stop you. I can't argue against longboat's, ilana's ,and michael's logic as it has obviously worked well for them. for me though, training at paces designed to get me to my goal is has served me very well. chalk the last one up to a bad race...

LMAO. Why bother asking for advice if you know all the answers better than some of the smartest runner's I've ever come across. Only under the most ideal situation running in exact weather and the same course type and equivalent training would a 2:09 translate to a 4:30. Are you capable of a 4:30? I'm sure you are, but at that point your half time will be 2:05 or faster.

Ummm...you're not replying to the OP. You do realize that, right? The person you're replying to never asked for any advice, and never posted his/her times or goals. For all you know, he/she may be a 3 hour marathoner...

With the wind, hills, and headache, it's no wonder the race was difficult for you.

in terms of the 2:09, I just don't see the 4:30 out of range with that time...aggressive? maybe. Out of reach...no. all i can base this on is from personal experience and if i had listened to all the people who told me that i would never meet my previous two time goals based on HM times and weekly mileage then I probably would have failed.

Needless to say, all this is important and will play a factor but don't let it stop you. I can't argue against longboat's, ilana's ,and michael's logic as it has obviously worked well for them. for me though, training at paces designed to get me to my goal is has served me very well. chalk the last one up to a bad race...

just my opinion as others have said a HMx2 + 12 = Marathon time is not likely to happen unless you are running a lot of miles. There is also a good chance that you ended up "racing" some of your training runs in order to hit your pace times.

Also as others have said my second marathon time was slower then my first so don't be afraid to get back up on the horse and try again. Plug your current times into a calculator like http://www.test.mcmillanrunning.com/ to get your current paces and train at your current ability from which you will improve and try again.

Ummm...you're not replying to the OP. You do realize that, right? The person you're replying to never asked for any advice, and never posted his/her times or goals. For all you know, he/she may be a 3 hour marathoner...

Thanks mep...I had to read this twice to make sure that i understood the comment correctly.

I definitely was simply giving advice to the OP that her goal of 4:30 isn't out of reach and that she shouldn't let people think it is based on a 2:09.

my FM PB was 3:14:03 and my HM PB was 1:33 before Chicago and everybody (with the exception of my wife, my son, and my best friend) looked at me funny when I told them I was running a sub-3. No one is laughing now.

can't say I agree with michael on this. personally, i need a goal time so i can plan out how hard i am going to push it in training. i can't go in to training using my current level of fitness and then say i'm going to run just a bit harder than the shape i am in now then try to improve it. without a firm goal and a solid plan, it'll be like throwing darts.

hanson, pftizinger et al all base their training on goal time to plan out the proper paces one needs to hit during training. it's one of the reasons why these plans are so effective.

unless the OPs goal is completely unrealistic (like if she said she want's to run a sub 3 a year after running a sub 5), I think setting a realistic goal, which she did in considering 4:30 then sticking to a plan that can get her there is probably more effective than training without a goal.

now, if after going through training and determining that her body did or did not adapt well to it, that would be the time to adjust it higher or lower.

Pfitzinger assumes a solid knowledge of a realistic outcome, which most new marathoners do not have. An experienced marathoner is not likely to dramatically affect their marathon finish time during a 15 week training cycle, a new marathoner WILL. Arbitrarily choosing an arbitrary "round number" really IS throwing a dart. The OP's goal WAS unrealistic, she just didn't know it.

I don't know about you, but I decide how hard I am going to train by how much my body can handle and how much time I have, not a given finish time. I don't work out less hard because I don't care about cutting 5 more minutes off my time, nor do I know anyone who does: I can't work out harder because I'm putting the maximum possible into the time I can invest.

My assumption is people are trying to improve as much as possible in the available time. If their goal is to minimize the amount of work to hit an easily achieveable goal, then training by goal time might make sense otherwise improving as much as possible seems a better goal. This requires a plan, is based on something known (current fitness), and can be measured and adjusted.

Pfitzinger assumes a solid knowledge of a realistic outcome, which most new marathoners do not have. An experienced marathoner is not likely to dramatically affect their marathon finish time during a 15 week training cycle, a new marathoner WILL. Arbitrarily choosing an arbitrary "round number" really IS throwing a dart. The OP's goal WAS unrealistic, she just didn't know it.

OK since you know exactly what is realistic and what is not for each individual person, let's see how close you come here...

Very young, inexperienced marathoner (age 12). 2nd marathon, but 1st was half trail, half road, so time of 4:36 was meaningless for predicting 1st road marathon 2 months later. Half PR was 1:42:24. Average mpw in the few months leading up to the road marathon was 20-25. Longest run (other than the road/trail marathon) was a 25K, otherwise nothing over 10 miles in the 3 months prior to the race.

What time was realistic for this runner to run his first road marathon in?

Pfitzinger assumes a solid knowledge of a realistic outcome, which most new marathoners do not have. An experienced marathoner is not likely to dramatically affect their marathon finish time during a 15 week training cycle, a new marathoner WILL. Arbitrarily choosing an arbitrary "round number" really IS throwing a dart. The OP's goal WAS unrealistic, she just didn't know it.

OK since you know exactly what is realistic and what is not for each individual person, let's see how close you come here...

Very young, inexperienced marathoner (age 12). 2nd marathon, but 1st was half trail, half road, so time of 4:36 was meaningless for predicting 1st road marathon 2 months later. Half PR was 1:42:24. Average mpw in the few months leading up to the road marathon was 20-25. Longest run (other than the road/trail marathon) was a 25K, otherwise nothing over 10 miles in the 3 months prior to the race.

What time was realistic for this runner to run his first road marathon in?

Curious to see how close you come...

Age 12?

No offense, but that is just a bs question. Kids are not subject to the same improvement curves of adults. In fact having a 12 year old run a full marathon is such a horrible idea in terms of improvement of a runner, there is no valid answer to your question.

Again, where are you getting the idea that 4:30 is unrealistic? I just don't see it. the OP ran her first marathon under 5 hours. she had a 2:09 half. even mcmillan (which seems to be quite a popular indicator in this forum) thinks a 4:30 is realistic. What are you basing your answer on? more darts?

let me get this straight…you believe that you cannot work any harder because you are putting the max amount of effort into your training. How do you know this? Heart rate? perceived level of effort? How do you know what pace markers to hit particularly in an MP run? Is your answer "it depends on how I am feeling that day?" Don't you think that if you had a certain pace to hit that you would actually try even harder to get it?

I'm glad then that you don't know me because I do care about cutting 5 minutes off my time…or 10 or 20; setting a goal and developing a plan is what gets me there. On days where I don't feel like running, my plan tells me I have to get up and run 16 miles @ 6:50 (for example). My goal gives me the target. My plan makes me work harder.

See, I just don't get the concept of improving as much as possible without a quantifiable end point. If I did that, I will forever ask myself, I wonder how much more I could have achieved if I actually set an aggressive goal n the first place?

How's this for arbitrary? Started running june 2010. First FM was oct 2010 (4:00:32), second was oct 2011 (3:45:21). HM PB was May 2011 (1:42:45). Mileage peaked at 50 mpw. averaged closer to 40 training for oct 2011. not quite a beginner but not really an intermediate either. so this takes the pfitzinger equation out (according to you).

I bet you any money that if I posted here and said my goal was 3:15 for May 2012, you would have shot me down and told me that if I trained as hard as possible then maybe I can get a 3:30 because that was my "known" fitness level at that time.

turns out I'm pretty good at throwing darts…having a goal helped of course as unrealistic as that one may have been to some people.

Dear all, but especially clsarah, mep5555, and marathonm9n! This just shows me so clearly that runners are passionate about their sport, and that it goes without saying that there is no "one size fits all" approach to training. Thank you so much for all your support and insight, I learn something new with every post! Most of all, I'm learning that the joy should always come from the honesty of effort and beauty of the run, not from what the clock says about me.

Wow, I saw Marath as the start of the name and thought it was the OP (Martha) replying saying the previous posters were wrong about her. It just seemed odd that she asked for an honest reply and was going to ignore them. I deleted the post. MY BAD! Sorry to both of you.

Martha, I'm sure you'll get your confidence back, but like the other posters mentioned, and I rudely alluded to you can have some great races, but you just bit off more than you were ready for this time.

Originally Posted by mep5555:

Originally Posted by kzod:

Originally Posted by marathonm9n:

With the wind, hills, and headache, it's no wonder the race was difficult for you.

in terms of the 2:09, I just don't see the 4:30 out of range with that time...aggressive? maybe. Out of reach...no. all i can base this on is from personal experience and if i had listened to all the people who told me that i would never meet my previous two time goals based on HM times and weekly mileage then I probably would have failed.

Needless to say, all this is important and will play a factor but don't let it stop you. I can't argue against longboat's, ilana's ,and michael's logic as it has obviously worked well for them. for me though, training at paces designed to get me to my goal is has served me very well. chalk the last one up to a bad race...

LMAO. Why bother asking for advice if you know all the answers better than some of the smartest runner's I've ever come across. Only under the most ideal situation running in exact weather and the same course type and equivalent training would a 2:09 translate to a 4:30. Are you capable of a 4:30? I'm sure you are, but at that point your half time will be 2:05 or faster.

Ummm...you're not replying to the OP. You do realize that, right? The person you're replying to never asked for any advice, and never posted his/her times or goals. For all you know, he/she may be a 3 hour marathoner...

Dear all, but especially clsarah, mep5555, and marathonm9n! This just shows me so clearly that runners are passionate about their sport, and that it goes without saying that there is no "one size fits all" approach to training. Thank you so much for all your support and insight, I learn something new with every post! Most of all, I'm learning that the joy should always come from the honesty of effort and beauty of the run, not from what the clock says about me.

You are very welcome Martha. Glad that you came across useful info in this thread.

I do apologize for getting it a bit sidetracked... It's that passion thing.

Dear all, but especially clsarah, mep5555, and marathonm9n! This just shows me so clearly that runners are passionate about their sport, and that it goes without saying that there is no "one size fits all" approach to training. Thank you so much for all your support and insight, I learn something new with every post! Most of all, I'm learning that the joy should always come from the honesty of effort and beauty of the run, not from what the clock says about me.

You are very welcome. You're right, there is no one size fits all. Everyone is different, and everyone's goals, expectations, etc. are different as well. Best of luck to you!

Pfitzinger assumes a solid knowledge of a realistic outcome, which most new marathoners do not have. An experienced marathoner is not likely to dramatically affect their marathon finish time during a 15 week training cycle, a new marathoner WILL. Arbitrarily choosing an arbitrary "round number" really IS throwing a dart. The OP's goal WAS unrealistic, she just didn't know it.

OK since you know exactly what is realistic and what is not for each individual person, let's see how close you come here...

Very young, inexperienced marathoner (age 12). 2nd marathon, but 1st was half trail, half road, so time of 4:36 was meaningless for predicting 1st road marathon 2 months later. Half PR was 1:42:24. Average mpw in the few months leading up to the road marathon was 20-25. Longest run (other than the road/trail marathon) was a 25K, otherwise nothing over 10 miles in the 3 months prior to the race.

What time was realistic for this runner to run his first road marathon in?

Curious to see how close you come...

Age 12?

No offense, but that is just a bs question. Kids are not subject to the same improvement curves of adults. In fact having a 12 year old run a full marathon is such a horrible idea in terms of improvement of a runner, there is no valid answer to your question.

There's a very valid answer. Everyone's reason(s) for running are different. Not everyone wants or needs to follow a cookie-cutter approach. Many (including you) will say a 12-year old has no business running a marathon, and has all kinds of time to do that when they are older. The truth is, that may not be true, and especially in the case of the 12-year old (now 13) in question. No one is guaranteed anything in running, or in life, and he understands that better than most due to his own experiences. It's possible his running career could be over before this month is over due to his circumstances that he has no control over. It almost ended once a few years ago. So if running marathons is what he wants to do now, while he still can,, then who am I to stop him? Oh and since he has started running marathons, his track times have dropped like a rock, which is contrary to what many would say as well.

let me get this straight…you believe that you cannot work any harder because you are putting the max amount of effort into your training. How do you know this? Heart rate? perceived level of effort? How do you know what pace markers to hit particularly in an MP run? Is your answer "it depends on how I am feeling that day?" Don't you think that if you had a certain pace to hit that you would actually try even harder to get it?

I'm glad then that you don't know me because I do care about cutting 5 minutes off my time…or 10 or 20; setting a goal and developing a plan is what gets me there. On days where I don't feel like running, my plan tells me I have to get up and run 16 miles @ 6:50 (for example). My goal gives me the target. My plan makes me work harder.

See, I just don't get the concept of improving as much as possible without a quantifiable end point. If I did that, I will forever ask myself, I wonder how much more I could have achieved if I actually set an aggressive goal n the first place?

I'd also say you don't get the concept of training as hard as you can and take where that brings you on race day. First where did you get the idea that there's no quantifiable goal? It not an arbitrary number like sub-4:00 or BQ, but determined based on experience. Then the idea of sticking rigidly to a plan, e.g. running 16 miles @ 6:50 because that's what the plan calls for when all other indications show that's not a good idea because you aren't recovered from the last long or hard run, is a good way to run yourself into an injury or overtraining. Working harder isn't always the way to get faster. Working at the right effort and training smarter is.

It has always seemed to me that most people train in ways that they find satisfying. It would be silly to do otherwise. Arguing that people could or should train the way you do or I do makes no sense unless they first want to train the way you do or I do. I know a lot of ex-runners who pushed themselves hard most every run back in the 70's. They've gone on to other things; push themselves just as hard; and have no regrets. Others of us are still happily shuffling around in the woods.

I'd also say you don't get the concept of training as hard as you can and take where that brings you on race day. First where did you get the idea that there's no quantifiable goal? It not an arbitrary number like sub-4:00 or BQ, but determined based on experience. Then the idea of sticking rigidly to a plan, e.g. running 16 miles @ 6:50 because that's what the plan calls for when all other indications show that's not a good idea because you aren't recovered from the last long or hard run, is a good way to run yourself into an injury or overtraining. Working harder isn't always the way to get faster. Working at the right effort and training smarter is.

In this case, you tell me what your quantifiable goal is for your next race? Remember, the argument here is at which point is it better to establish a goal time. It's whether training to a specific goal or simply training to improve THEN pick a goal. You're on the training to improve camp now tell me how you are quantifying your goal end result before training begins?

Mine is easy. I have a time goal for Berlin and my entire plan uses Pftizinger's 18/70 designed to hit that goal by the time I finish. All the pace markers are calibrated to get me there even if I am physically and mentally nowhere close to this right now (it's again one of those unrealistic goals that some folks refer to). That is quantifiable and measurable each and every step of the way from 18 weeks forward. I may succeed or I may fail but that discussion is for another day.

As for sticking to a plan rigidly...who said anything about not being recovered enough and overtraining? How about days where you just wake up and feel lazy? Or 4 inches of snow just fell overnight? Without a plan that tells me to go and run, I would have packed it in. That's what I'm referring to. Being too hurt or close to injury is different, this is where we make adjustments to accommodate. The goal remains the same, we just need to make adjustments necessary so we can continue to implement the plan that is in place.

Again, where are you getting the idea that 4:30 is unrealistic? I just don't see it. the OP ran her first marathon under 5 hours. she had a 2:09 half. even mcmillan (which seems to be quite a popular indicator in this forum) thinks a 4:30 is realistic. What are you basing your answer on? more darts?

....

How's this for arbitrary? Started running june 2010. First FM was oct 2010 (4:00:32), second was oct 2011 (3:45:21). HM PB was May 2011 (1:42:45). Mileage peaked at 50 mpw. averaged closer to 40 training for oct 2011. not quite a beginner but not really an intermediate either. so this takes the pfitzinger equation out (according to you).

I bet you any money that if I posted here and said my goal was 3:15 for May 2012, you would have shot me down and told me that if I trained as hard as possible then maybe I can get a 3:30 because that was my "known" fitness level at that time.

turns out I'm pretty good at throwing darts…having a goal helped of course as unrealistic as that one may have been to some people.

If you had posted here with the above information, I (and everybody else) would have shrugged and said, "With a half time that's from a year ago, no prediction can be made." I mean, your May HM would have suggested a 3:34 full shortly thereafter, but your October full was much slower, showing that you needed more endurance. Presumably your continued cycles of relatively high mileage gave you that, plus as a relatively new runner you were still on the fast improvement curve.

The thing is, if you had run a 10K or a half in March 2012, and not underperformed for some underlying reason (recovering from illness, a hilly course at altitude, etc) I will bet that your time would have been in line with your 3:15 full time. Saying your half PR is 1:42:45 and your full is 3:15 is disingenuous.

The OP ran her 2:09 half "a few weeks" before her full marathon. As reglor has pointed out, a 2:09 projects to about a 4:40 using conservative assumptions; the aggressive projection of a 4:30 (as most common calculators do) is based on having endurance to match one's speed, which few people running low mileage do. I would never suggest a first-time marathoner at that pace level use such an aggressive prediction.

Saying your program is training you for a certain goal time because you hit all your paces falls into the same trap as using these aggressive predictors. Speed is only one component of a marathon time; endurance - how long you can hold that speed - is the critical factor this overlooks.

There's a very valid answer. Everyone's reason(s) for running are different. Not everyone wants or needs to follow a cookie-cutter approach. Many (including you) will say a 12-year old has no business running a marathon, and has all kinds of time to do that when they are older. The truth is, that may not be true, and especially in the case of the 12-year old (now 13) in question. No one is guaranteed anything in running, or in life, and he understands that better than most due to his own experiences. It's possible his running career could be over before this month is over due to his circumstances that he has no control over. It almost ended once a few years ago. So if running marathons is what he wants to do now, while he still can,, then who am I to stop him? Oh and since he has started running marathons, his track times have dropped like a rock, which is contrary to what many would say as well.

I am not sure what point you are trying to prove - that a 12 year old kid is an outlier to a standard improvement curve set by adults if we only look at a couple of random data points and have no clue how he was trained? Because that was pretty much point in saying there is no valid answer to your hypo.

OK since you know exactly what is realistic and what is not for each individual person, let's see how close you come here...

Very young, inexperienced marathoner (age 12). 2nd marathon, but 1st was half trail, half road, so time of 4:36 was meaningless for predicting 1st road marathon 2 months later. Half PR was 1:42:24. Average mpw in the few months leading up to the road marathon was 20-25. Longest run (other than the road/trail marathon) was a 25K, otherwise nothing over 10 miles in the 3 months prior to the race.

The trail marathon is, as you say, worthless in projecting another marathon's time, except to say he could do a road marathon in less than 4:36. ( Unless you have specific information about technical level of terrain, elevation gain, and possibly how other runner's road marathons corresponded to their times in this trail. I myself ran a 3:48 marathon on 22mpw a few months after running a 2:25 (hilly) half marathon; the 3:48 time was accurately projected given my other race info.)

Disregarding the trail marathon we have only his HM PR of 1:42:24 and mileage of 20-25mpw to go on. Plugging that half time into the Race Time Estimator spreadsheet I linked in earlier post we come up with range of projected marathon times:

The aggressive settings (similar to the McMillan projected time of 3:36) should be considered accurate only for people training at 65+mpw. Turns out the kid ran a 3:47, which seems to fit pretty close with a conservative projection (i.e, a projection appropriate for low training miles) off a 1:42 half.

The issue of whether marathon times can be accurately projected has nothing to do with whether there's a "one size fits all" training program. Clearly people train all sorts of different ways. BUT, given some knowledge of a person's training program (mileage, most importantly) and some recent times that represent their best efforts at shorter distances, it is possible to _project_ marathon times fairly accurately. I'll say it again: projecting accurate marathon times has nothing to do with whether there is a one-size-fits-all training program.

The conversion factors used in these projections are not just some person's "opinion". They've been tested and confirmed to be pretty accurate in thousands of cases, are widely accepted and used by knowledgeable coaches in advising their runners, and used by people like Ilana on these forms to provide people with valuable advice on how to pace their marathons. The projections aren't absolutely perfect, but given good input (recent training info and recent "best effort" times at shorter distances) they are surprisingly accurate, reliable, and helpful.

I personally don't like McMillan's as I think that it is to conservative. But I know that from a lot of racing experience.

The main problem with McMillan's is that it spits out a number from a previous race without having any way to account for the role of training mileage. For some people (mostly those who train roughly 60-70mpw) McMillan is pretty close to accurate, for people with lower mileage McMillan will generally be too aggressive, for those with high mileage it will generally be too conservative.

With enough races people could use even a tool like McMillan to project their times, regardless of whether they're training at 60-70mpw. You just get a feel for how much slower or faster you'll be than the time McMillan spits out.

A tool like the Race Time Estimator spreadsheet I linked earlier is better because it takes out some of the guesswork, 'very conservative' to 'very aggressive' ranges allow you to get projections that account for very low training mileage to very high training mileage. I think the 'fairly aggressive' projection on Race Time Estimator corresponds pretty closely to what you get out of McMillan.

Originally Posted by dkggpeters:

The models may fit the majority if they are properly trained, but there are outliers where a 2:09 half person could easily do a 4:30.

4:30 off a 2:09 half is not an "outlier". In fact, McMillan predicts 4:31 off a 2:09 half. The main problem is:

1. The conversion factors McMillan uses are too aggressive for somebody training 20 to 40 miles per week

2. The majority of marathon runners train less than 40mpw.

3. McMillan is a very commonly used calculator, and most people using it don't realize (1) that training mileage is of critical importance in making projections and (2) that McMillan's projections are accurate only for runners in 70mpw range..

Given 1, 2, and 3 above, it's easy to why a lot of people get the impression that projections are worthless or unreliable. They're not. You have to use common sense when applying them (e.g., adjust up if target race has more hills than earlier shorter race) but they're useful tools.

How's this for arbitrary? Started running june 2010. First FM was oct 2010 (4:00:32), second was oct 2011 (3:45:21). HM PB was May 2011 (1:42:45). Mileage peaked at 50 mpw. averaged closer to 40 training for oct 2011. not quite a beginner but not really an intermediate either. so this takes the pfitzinger equation out (according to you).

I bet you any money that if I posted here and said my goal was 3:15 for May 2012, you would have shot me down and told me that if I trained as hard as possible then maybe I can get a 3:30 because that was my "known" fitness level at that time.

Saying your program is training you for a certain goal time because you hit all your paces falls into the same trap as using these aggressive predictors. Speed is only one component of a marathon time; endurance - how long you can hold that speed - is the critical factor this overlooks.

I'll add some more info because you mentioned high mileage. took me a while to get my records but it turns out I average 42 mpw for 13 weeks leading up to May 2012. three long runs week 6, 5, 4 longest at 22 miles @7:59. fastest HM ran during that period (training only) 1:39:03.

Yes I absolutely am saying my goal-based program works for me because it got me there both times.

Remember the crux of this discussion changed from whether a 2:09 turns into a 4:30 (and I still believe it is despite the result) to whether setting a time goal before training is more effective than setting one afterwards. I still say that if I hadn't set the 3:15 or the 3:00 goal in marathons #3 and #4 before designing my plan, i would have finished slower on both.

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.